SAN FRANCISCO – The Giants cleared the stadium after a victory earlier this summer and rolled the batting cage back onto the field.

They held one of those corporate fantasy batting practice events, complete with mood music and refreshments and knobby, stiff-armed, aluminum-bat swings.

Former big leaguer Mike Felder made an appearance as the resident coach/miracle worker, and he was in full uniform — complete with the number he wore as a Giant.

No. 25.

It is strikingly odd to see someone other than Barry Bonds wearing that number. It hasn”t been reissued since his final season in 2007. And longtime equipment manager Mike Murphy assures me that it won”t go back into circulation as long as he holds any sway in the clubhouse.

What the hell. Why don”t the Giants just make it official and retire Bonds” number?

The easiest retort is to quote long-standing policy: the Giants only retire the numbers of Hall of Famers. Most major league teams have the same policy.

And it”s a dumb one.

Bonds didn”t make a speech at induction ceremonies in Cooperstown this summer, and I doubt he ever will. Even if many BBWAA voters soften their stance on players proven or suspected of PED use, it is a long climb from 35 percent to 75 percent. Then there is the recent change that shrinks Bonds” eligibility from 15 years on the ballot to 10. The 10-name limit continues to be a squeeze for more than half the voters, too.

The short version, then: Bonds will never be elected by the BBWAA. No chance. And do you think he stands any hope with the Veterans” Committee? Heck no. Nobody wants PED-era players kept out more than the current Hall of Famers — even though more than one is suspected of dabbling in steroid use.

This is simple. The Giants shouldn”t let a deeply flawed Hall of Fame election process determine whether or not they should retire the number of a player who gave their fans countless thrills, who performed incredible feats, who put on an offensive display that dwarfed his contemporaries in a way the game had not experienced since Babe Ruth.

Bonds wasn”t just the greatest player of his generation. He is an important figure in franchise history. He led the Giants out of irrelevance in their own town. He literally led them out of the cold. His father starred for them. His Godfather is Willie Mays. He is family.

AT&T Park is the palace built for Bonds. In many ways, you could argue it was the palace built by Bonds, too.

The legal battle is no longer an impediment or distraction. The Feds spent millions of your tax dollars to get one flimsy conviction, which was overturned by a higher court. The Justice Dept. officially gave up its hunt for his hide earlier this summer.

It won”t be long now before the first small steps between Bonds and the Giants are taken: first the plaque on the Wall of Fame, then a few more public appearances, maybe another part-time coaching stint. You have to build traction with these things. You don”t jump straight to the statue.

But at some point, the number question will come up. And the Giants, if they are so inclined, can spout the automatic defense. He isn”t a Hall of Famer.

It”s a foolish defense. Players mean different things to their franchises and their fans than they do to a national electorate of baseball writers or retired greats. Their careers resonate differently and more deeply on a local level. Sometimes, in the case of a Dwight Gooden or Fernando Valenzuela, they become a full-fledged phenomenon, capable of turning every fifth day into a civic event.

But please. The Mariners play in a ballpark that skirts Edgar Martinez Way, but they won”t retire Martinez”s No. 11 because he isn”t a Hall of Famer? (He should be, by the way.) You can”t get cavalier and retire the number of every guy who makes an All-Star team. We don”t want players to be wearing triple-digits in another couple decades.

Last year The Sporting News conducted a reader poll asking which players should have their numbers retired. Edgar received the highest approval rating, at 81 percent. He was the only player to receive more support than Pete Rose, who came in at 75 percent.

I”d be curious to see how Giants fans would vote in a similar poll for Bonds. My guess: a solid yes. Maybe not overwhelming. But solid.

So regardless of what percentage Bonds pulls on the next seven Hall of Fame ballots, the Giants should retire No. 25.

And when the time comes, they absolutely should retire Tim Lincecum”s No. 55, too.